Betcha didn’t know this: The Tea Party movement’s growth was fueled by unemployed people lying around looking for something to do, and will have a hard time sustaining itself if/when the economy improves. Oh, and they’re so distressed about the country’s circumstances that they’re letting emotion trump facts in their advocacy.

Those are the themes of Kate Zernike’s Saturday New York Times report with the snarky title (“With No Jobs, Plenty of Time for Tea Party”) that was carried on the front page of Sunday’s print edition. Really. This is the same Kate Zernike (pictured at top right) who saw racism where none existed at CPAC in February, and who Andrew Breitbart memorably called “a despicable human being.” Seems about right.

Zernike’s piece attempted to support its pathetic premises and implications as a result of discussions with three — count ‘em — individuals. One of them is in her mid-60s and collecting Social Security, hardly the archetype of a disaffected unemployed person. Comically, the Times reporter characterized Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks a “Tea Party group,” even though it was founded in 1984, a quarter-century before Rick Santelli’s memorable tea-party rant last year.

At rallies, gatherings and training sessions in recent months, activists often tell a similar story in interviews: they had lost their jobs, or perhaps watched their homes plummet in value, and they found common cause in the Tea Party’s fight for lower taxes and smaller government.

The Great Depression, too, mobilized many middle-class people who had fallen on hard times. Though, as Michael Kazin, the author of “The Populist Persuasion,” notes, they tended to push for more government involvement. The Tea Party vehemently wants less — though a number of its members acknowledge that they are relying on government programs for help.

… The fact that many of them joined the Tea Party after losing their jobs raises questions of whether the movement can survive an improvement in the economy, with people trading protest signs for paychecks.

But for now, some are even putting their savings into work that they argue is more important than a job — planning candidate forums and get-out-the-vote operations, researching arguments about the constitutional limits on Congress and using Facebook to attract recruits.

“Even if I wanted to stop, I just can’t,” said Diana Reimer, 67, who has become a star of the effort by FreedomWorks, a Tea Party group, to fight the health care overhaul. “I’m on a mission, and time is not on my side.”

… She and others who receive government benefits like Medicare and Social Security said they paid into those programs, so they are getting what they deserve.

“All I know is government was put here for certain reasons,” Ms. Reimer said. “They were not put here to run banks, insurance companies, and health care and automobile companies. They were put here to keep us safe.”

… (Unemployed Midwesterner Jeff McQueen) and others do not see any contradictions in their arguments for smaller government even as they argue that it should do more to prevent job loss or cuts to Medicare. After a year of angry debate, emotion outweighs fact.

… Tea Party groups like FreedomWorks recognize that they are benefiting from the labor of many people who have been hit hard economically. But its chairman, the former House majority leader Dick Armey, argued that their ranks will remain strong — and connected — even as members find work.

In Zernike’s world it’s almost as if you can’t criticize the government’s excessive largesse unless you’re not taking a dime of government benefits in any way, shape, or form.

As to her contention that Tea Party involvement will diminish as the economy improves, three points:

Based on my real-world observations of Tea Partiers, many of them do have jobs, and are working their activism around their work.

Many active Tea Partiers are in jobs or have self-employed businesses with a lot of time flexibility.

The Obama administration itself has said that the employment situation won’t improve much for quite some time, making Zernike’s assertion that Tea Partiers might become to busy to stay politically engaged a far-off dream.

3 Comments

“As to [Zernike's] contention that Tea Party involvement will diminish as the economy improves….”

The reason why so many people are joining the Tea Party movement is precisely because they AREN’T seeing any real improvement in the economy and don’t expect it to improve, especially once all those wonderful ObamaCare taxes start kicking in.

“[Zernike claims that] After a year of angry debate, emotion outweighs fact.”

Zernike must have been watching her favorite daytime drama when Obama held that televised “health care summit” a while back. “Emotion” was ALL that the Democrats had to offer to justify passage of ObamaCare; indeed, guys like Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan crushed their Democrat counterparts using specific, and verifiable, facts and figures.

Kate Zernike really does need to cross into Jersey and mix with the hoi polloi more often, huh?

Zernike, considering how government programs, such as Social Security, have crowded out any so many private options, you don’t have much choice but to collect government benefits in some shape or form. It’s either government “support” or nothing. And in the example of Social Security, it’s something that you are forced to pay into via a specific tax. What are people supposed to do when they hit 65, reject money from the program the government dictated you had to buy into in the first place? Since government law says that you can’t compete with the post office unless your service (like FedEx and UPS) is a specialized one, does that make tea partiers hypocrites because they send their regular mail (like letters, bills, etc.) through the government-run post office? Give me a break.

And the emotion crack is lame. Liberals and democrats arguments are mostly based around emotion and have been for decades. How many times have we heard a big government program justified with facts and not emotion? Hardly ever. It’s always “it’s for the children”, “but people are suffering and need government to be their nanny”, etc. etc. As MarkJ pointed out, the health care debate on the left side was mostly about unvetted anecdotes and emotional appeals, rarely about facts. People who debated with facts were derided as “cold” (despite that ignoring those “cold”, hard facts only leads to more misery and suffering). To paraphrase Biden, it was not about the truth for them, but about stories from “real people.” Talk about emotion outweighing fact.

(P.S. To hear liberals, the staunch supporters of abortion, talk about doing things ‘for the children’ never fails to turn my stomach.)

z Pol-Party-Lobby Sites z

Unclassified

Comments

Comments are welcome, but are moderated.
Posting of comments is not immediate, and may take up to 24 hours.
Comment posting, as well as possible deletion, isat the sole discretion of BizzyBlog.
Allowing a comment to be posted does not constitute agreement with it, or endorsement of it.

-----------------------------

S.O.B. Alliance

SOB Alliance posts

Testimonials

"(ACORN) says it provide lots of services for poor people, but a recent NewsBusters post by Tom Blumer exposes the hollow facts behind the claims."